- Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. Inflexion Point Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 1, 2025 · PGR2025-00045 · APJ Debra L Dennett · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any challenged claim was unpatentable under the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). The burden is on Petitioner to show that the challenged patent is eligible for postgrant review. Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Yeda Research & Dev. Co., PGR2016- 00010, Paper 9 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2016) (holding that the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with a petitioner to demonstrate that the challenged patent is eligible for post-grant review). Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the cited evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that it is more likely than not that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable. We thus determine to not institute a post-grant review of the ’027 patent based on the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“a Bachelor of Science degree in Agricultural or Mechanical Engineering with 2–4 years of practical, applied experience in the field of agricultural machinery, including systems integration and fluid handling and sprayer control systems, or equivalent experience. Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2001, ¶ 59). Patent Owner states that the differences in the asserted levels of ordinary skill should not change the outcome of the Petition. Id. For the purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, which appears consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art references of record and the ’027 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Our analysis, however, would not change were we to adopt Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends that claim construction is necessary for the “seed-applied substance” term because Petitioner allegedly ignores the teaching of the specification in evaluating the term. Prelim. Resp. 12. Patent Owner points to the specification, which defines a “seed-applied substance” as “includ[ing] any composition applied to seeds prior to the seeds being planted (e.g., when the seed comes in contact with the soil in a field).” Id. at 13 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:45-48). Patent Owner contends that the term means “a substance that is applied directly to the seed before the seed comes into contact with the soil in a field.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001, ¶ 55). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner erroneously uses a definition that “allows the ‘seedapplied substance’ to be applied to the seed (and soil) as the seed lay planted in the soil.’” Id. For the purpose of addressing Petitioner’s grounds, we use the definition of “seed-applied substance” provided in the ’027 patent, i.e., “any composition applied to seeds prior to the seeds being planted (e.g., when the seed comes in contact with the soil in a field).” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[A] patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history.”).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“3. Analysis Our analysis of whether Wagers discloses the limitation “individually applying the desired application amount of the selected type of the seed-applied substance to each seed as it is being delivered to the soil” is dispositive of Petitioner’s challenge to claim 1 as anticipated.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,102,027 - Zhuhai Cosmx Battery Co., Ltd. v. Ninge Amperex Technology LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 20, 2025 · IPR2025-00385 · APJ Debra L Dennett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 were anticipated by Nishikawa or obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that A person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would typically hold an advanced degree in chemistry, material science, and/or a related discipline, and have at least two years of experience with designing and/or fabricating battery separators or have an equivalent level of education, training, and experience. Pet. 5. Patent Owner “adopts the definition proposed by Petitioner” for the purposes of the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 22. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition because it is consistent with the specification. We note that neither party indicated that the result would change under any different definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Absolute plastic deformation rate” and “relative plastic deformation rate” are the only claim terms disputed in this proceeding, and are clearly defined in the Specification and in claim 1. See Spec. 4:22–27, 4:47–54; 25:31–37. Because we determine that claim construction is not necessary to decide whether to institute, we do not expressly construe any claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s arguments are unconvincing. Petitioner points to nothing in Nishikawa that allows a POSITA to determine L2 (defined as “a length of 4 Tensile strength is measured as force per units area, such as MPa or psi. One MPa equals one N/mm2. Nishikawa Table 1 discloses tensile strength in N/cm. Ex. 1004 Table 1. Petitioner makes calculations to convert the reported N/cm into N/m2 and then to GPa, but provides no explanation for why tensile strength is reported in N/cm or how it was measured. See Pet. 31. the porous substrate after the porous substrate is stretched to breakage and docked along the fracture caused by the breakage and flattened”) or L2 – L0. See generally Pet., Ex. 1004. Petitioner and its expert, Dr. Pecht, fail to adequately explain why tensile strength divided by Young’s modulus is “a proxy for L1 – L2” or why such a proxy is sufficient to disclose the limitation as stated. Instead, we are required to rely on “approximations” and “estimates” with insufficient explanation of why such they are appropriate or adequate. See Pet. 26, 30, 32; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97, 105–108, 111.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,964,927 - Cargill, Incorporated v. Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 29, 2025 · IPR2024-01360 · APJ Debra L Dennett · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Cargill’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1, 6–9, and 11–24 because the petition did not show a reason to combine the selected prior-art data without hindsight.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Upon request for rehearing, we assess a decision on institution “for an abuse of discretion” (37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2020)), which occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law,” “clearly erroneous factual findings,” or “a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2020). The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence. We have reviewed Petitioner’s Rehearing Request and carefully considered all the arguments presented. For the following reasons, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As discussed in the Decision, “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). No matter the result of combining the allegedly “readily available and well-known” information taken from particular examples from the “documentary evidence” with Petrauskaite’s disclosure, a POSITA had to have been motivated to do so at the time the invention was made.1 What is missing from the Petition is the “why.” The only motivating force in this case appears to be hindsight spurring Petitioner on to choose particular examples of palm stearin disclosed in Deffense and the soybean oil in Neff in order to justify its assertion that Petrauskaite discloses the claimed wt% ranges of triglyceride classes.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). No matter the result of combining the allegedly “readily available and well-known” information taken from particular examples from the “documentary evidence” with Petrauskaite’s disclosure, a POSITA had to have been motivated to do so at the time the invention was made.1 What is missing from the Petition is the “why.” The only motivating force in this case appears to be hindsight spurring Petitioner on to choose particular examples of palm stearin disclosed in Deffense and the soybean oil in Neff in order to justify its assertion that Petrauskaite discloses the claimed wt% ranges of triglyceride classes.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s. We find no instance in the Petition in which “motivation” and “iodine value” are discussed together or linked in any way. The same can be said of Dr. Marangoni’s declaration. And, as noted in the Decision, it was not until the Preliminary Reply that Petitioner argued that specific data on fatty acid wt% used for the conversion calculations were selected to represent “knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art” due to similarity of the iodine value (“IV”) of the palm stearin (and soybean oil) disclosed in Petrauskaite. See Prelim. Reply 2–3. New evidence or argument in the Preliminary Reply that could have presented earlier is not permitted. On this record, we find Petitioner relies its Rehearing Request on arguments about a motivation to combine, stemming from the significance of iodine values, that were not raised in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to support that the Decision misapprehended or overlooked arguments in the Petition about the significance of iodine values.” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,645,473 - Cargill, Incorporated v. Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 19, 2025 · IPR2024-01360 · APJ Debra L Dennett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 6–9, and 11–24 were unpatentable as obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“institute review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Having considered the arguments and the associated evidence, we determine that Petitioner does not meet the reasonable likelihood standard, and we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this institution decision, and based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ473 patent, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, consistent with pre-AIA section 103(a). See Pet. 9–10. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ473 patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes constructions for several terms, all such constructions based on statements in the ’473 patent. See Pet. 10–12. Patent Owner presents no claim construction issues. Prelim. Resp. 8 n.3. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim term requires express interpretation at this time. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s representation of the problem as merely converting Petrauskaite’s disclosed mol% of triglycerides into wt% of triglycerides with simple calculations represents a form of prohibited reliance on hindsight. See Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (hindsight to use the invention to define the problem the invention solves); see also Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (”Defining the problem in terms of its solution reveals improper hindsight in the selection of the prior art relevant to obviousness.”). “[W]hen someone is presented with the identical problem and told to make the patented invention, it often becomes virtually certain that the artisan will succeed in making the invention.” Mintz, 679 F.3d at 1377. Here, Petitioner urges that one of ordinary skill in the art need merely convert mol% of triglycerides in a specific fat blend into wt% of triglycerides in the specific fat blend. See Pet. 14–15 (“[T]he wt% of Petrauskaite’s fat blends can easily be calculated based on the generally available prior art knowledge of fatty acid compositions of palm stearin and soybean oil.”). Petitioner’s reasoning says no more than that a skilled artisan, once presented with Petrauskaite and prior art knowledge, “would have understood that they could be combined, but that is not enough.” PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (that two references could be combined does not imply a motivation to pick out those two references and combine them to arrive at the claimed invention). Our reviewing court instructs that indicating that a skilled artisan could have made modifications to arrive at the claimed invention does not establish that a person of ordinary skill would have made such modifications. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” (citing InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Petitioner attempts to check the “would have been motivated to modify Petrauskaite” box with testimony from its declarant, Dr. Maragoni. See Pet. 37–38. Such testimony includes [C]ombining such prior art elements according to known methods would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. A POSITA would naturally have turned to these references to understand Petrauskaite’s references better. Ex. 1003 ¶ 178. [T]he corresponding wt% of Petrauskaite’s fat blends] was readily-available and well-known in the art. Id. at ¶ 181. [T]he available information [on characterizations of oils and fats] is voluminous. Id. at ¶ 182. See Pet. 38. We find that such testimony fails to explain why the skilled artisan would have been motivated, without hindsight, to take the steps to reproduce the claimed invention, and to be conclusory, at best. On this record, we detect the taint of impermissible hindsight bias in” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,645,473 - PTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00766 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted prior-art grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious over the prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“However, each of these asserted modifications is based on a teaching that is not present in Brown. Brown does not teach “a projection that provides resistance against ‘handle’ movement” or that “opening Brown’s ‘cover’ requires bending Brown’s ‘port,’” as asserted by Petitioner. See PO Resp. 22. As repeatedly noted, the identified “projection” appears to be nothing more than a portion of cover 14 the accessory/hose port. Petitioner’s arguments regarding a projection that provides resistance and a bendable port in Brown, appear to be nothing more than an effort to create the limitations of the claims in the prior art based on improper hindsight. For at least the above reasons, the Petition does not show how Brown teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the independent claims.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable
“Petitioner argues that when cleaning tool 10 (i.e. accessory) is in position on the vacuum, end wall 26 cannot open and, thus, that end wall is inhibited from opening. Pet. 45–46 (citing Ex. 1005, ¶ 37, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–145 (similar statements from Petitioner’s declarant)). Petitioner then asserts that the catch is therefore inhibited from moving to the disengaged position. Id. at 46. The combination of Dimbylow and Howes does not teach this limitation and Petitioner’s assertions are not persuasive. As can be seen from the above annotated Figure, nothing inhibits Dimbylow’s catch 42 from moving to a disengaged position. See also Prelim. Resp 11–14. Rather, any time Howe’s button is pressed, thereby moving the push-rod (to the right in the Figure), catch 42 would disengage, whether the door opened or not. Though cleaning tool 10 (i.e. accessory) inhibits end wall 26 from opening, it has no impact on movement of catch 42 (i.e. lock engaging member) from the engaged to disengaged position as required by the claim. Thus, the lock engaging member of Petitioner’s combination, i.e., the catch, is not inhibited from moving to a disengaged position when the accessory, i.e., the cleaning” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSA”). Id. at 13, 17. Petitioner’s declarant asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a similar field and 2-3 years of experience in machine design, such as vacuum cleaners. Additional education could offset less experience and vice versa, and a POSA could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means. Ex. 1002 ¶ 42; see also Pet. 22 (making the same assertion without citation to declarant). Patent Owner does not contest the level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 2. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s (and its declarant’s) proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’477 patent and prior art of record. We adopt the above definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,568,477 - Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00520 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Dexcom did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 5–7 were unpatentable under either Stafford–Raymond ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Burden of Proof “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity … the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Therefore, in an inter partes review, the burden of proof is on the Petitioner to show that the challenged claims are unpatentable; that burden never shifts to the patentee. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). At the institution stage, Petitioner must show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We do not find these arguments persuasive. It may be so that Turner teaches that its recesses 77 receive rotation-restricting protrusions 71, which “extend[] into each recess 77 such that the recess side walls interfere with the protrusions to prevent rotation of the insertion device relative to body 20.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 69. And, it may also be so that Turner teaches this assembly as an advantage in that it prevents rotation of body 20. Id. However, Petitioner did not present this “design choice” theory of obviousness in the Petition. Petitioner first raises its “obvious design choice” argument with respect to Turner and Ground 2 in its Reply Brief; it is not to be found in its Petition.12 Petitioner cannot raise an argument in its” slip op. at 32
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In each of the ’335 Specification, Stafford, Raymond, and Turner, the OBU is universally depicted as having a circular perimeter oriented around a longitudinal axis, and possessing either a cylindrical shape (’335 patent, Stafford, Raymond) or a roughly domed shape, with a circular, circumferential collar. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 8, 17, 52, 54; Ex. 1009, Figs 3A–C, 4A; Ex. 1010, Figs. 14–16, Ex. 1011, Figs. 2A–B, 5G, 7A-B, 9, 11, 13A–B, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 30, 37, 38. Moreover, in each description of the location of recesses 3766 in the ’335 Specification, the recesses are described as being located “on the side walls” of the OBU. See Ex. 1001, col. 44, ll. 8–12; col. 45, ll. 61–64. Given the circular perimeter of all of these embodiments of the disclosures of the ’335 Specification, the teachings of Petitioner’s cited references, the dictionary definition of “periphery” as being “the perimeter of a circle or other closed curve,” and the ordinary meaning that the terms would have had to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention, in view of the ’335 Specification and file history” (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13), we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “plurality of recesses disposed on a periphery of the on body electronics unit housing” would be located “on the circumference of the on-body housing,” as we concluded in the ’01396 IPR Decision. See Dec. 48; see also Ex. 1001, col. 44, ll. 9–14 (stating that “gripping arms 3762 [of medical device carrier 3730] are provided with engagement boss 3764 which are configured to engage with corresponding recesses 3766 provided on the side walls of the on body housing 322”).” slip op. at 38
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“However, Petitioner did not present this “design choice” theory of obviousness in the Petition. Petitioner first raises its “obvious design choice” argument with respect to Turner and Ground 2 in its Reply Brief; it is not to be found in its Petition.12 Petitioner cannot raise an argument in its 12 The Petition makes a design choice argument with respect to the teachings of Raymond on Ground 1, contending that “it would have been an obvious design choice to implement two spaced-apart plural recesses on the housing—one to engage the protrusions on each of the two arms taught by Raymond.” Pet. 38. However, Petitioner adduced no prior art teaching or evidence of record of “spaced-apart plural recesses on the housing” that Reply Brief if that argument could first have been raised in its Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Univ. of Massachusetts, 2018 WL 4278992, *5 n.4 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2018); Matterport, Inc. v. Appliance Comp. III, Inc., 2021 WL 6340164, *9–10 (PTAB Nov. 19, 2021).” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,266,335 - Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2023-01397 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because Dexcom did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 8, 9, and 11–27 were unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We do not find Petitioner’s argument persuasive. Figure 29 is a “cross-sectional view,… of the insertion device” disclosed by Raymond. Ex. 1110 ¶ 55. Another view of base 122 is depicted in Raymond’s Figure 18, a detail of which is reproduced below: Detail of Figure 18 of Raymond showing base 122 As depicted in Figure 18, base 122 of Raymond’s device comprises a circular disk, with an annular ring on the proximal side. This view is consistent with the cross-sectional view of base 122 in Raymond’s Figure 29, reproduced below: Detail of Raymond’s Figure 29 depicting a cross-sectional view of base 122 The annular ring of base 122, as depicted in Raymond’s Figures 18 and 29 thus comprises, at most, a single recess encircling base 122 beneath the annular ring at the periphery of the base. As such, it neither teaches nor suggests “a plurality of recesses disposed on a periphery of the on-body electronics unit housing, wherein the plurality of recesses comprises a first recess in a spaced relation to a second recess,” as required by challenged claim 1 of the ’335 patent. Petitioner’s argument that Figures 20 and 30 of Raymond depict” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Detail of Raymond’s Figure 29 depicting a cross-sectional view of base 122 The annular ring of base 122, as depicted in Raymond’s Figures 18 and 29 thus comprises, at most, a single recess encircling base 122 beneath the annular ring at the periphery of the base. As such, it neither teaches nor suggests “a plurality of recesses disposed on a periphery of the on-body electronics unit housing, wherein the plurality of recesses comprises a first recess in a spaced relation to a second recess,” as required by challenged claim 1 of the ’335 patent. Petitioner’s argument that Figures 20 and 30 of Raymond depict plural recesses in Raymond’s base 122 is based upon a false premise. See Pet. 37–38. The depiction of base 122 in these Figures is entirely consistent with the depiction of base 122 in Raymond’s Figure 18 as having an annular ring with a single recess situated beneath its rim. With respect to Petitioner’s argument that it would have been an obvious design choice to implement two spaced-apart plural recesses on the housing (see Pet. 38), neither Petitioner nor its Declarant, Dr. Fletcher, adduces any evidence beyond that conclusory statement. Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶ 70; Ex. 1110, Figs. 18, 25–27); Ex. 1003, 77. Petitioner makes no persuasive argument as to why a skilled artisan would substitute multiple recesses for a single annular ring, which seemingly serves the purpose of allowing base 122 to be held in position by base-retaining arms 1226. To the contrary, substituting multiple recesses in base 122 to engage retaining arms 1226, and ensuring that each retaining arm 1226 suitably engages each recess, would seem only to add needless complexity to the design, without producing a substantial benefit or improvement.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Turner’s rotation-resisting recesses 77 are not located on the periphery of its body 20. Instead, they are disclosed as being located upon the upper surface of body 20, between its central axis and its edge, and are configured to receive rotation-resisting protrusions 71 of insertion device 70. This placement of rotation-resisting recesses 77 is depicted in Figure 9 of Turner, which is reproduced again below: Figure 9 of Turner is a perspective, exploded view of its fluid delivery system including body 20 and rotation-restricting recesses 77 We therefore find that Turner does not teach or suggest the limitation of challenged claim 1 (and all claims by their dependency) reciting “an on body electronics unit housing comprising a plurality of recesses disposed on a periphery of the on body electronics unit housing.” We further conclude that Petitioner provides no persuasive reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to alter the location of Turner’s rotation-resisting recesses 77 from the upper surface to the circumferential periphery of body 20, because Turner and the ’335 patent teach that their respective recesses serve different functions. Turner teaches that:” slip op. at 47
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“Because we deny institution of inter partes review on the merits, we need not reach the parties’ arguments with respect to whether we should exercise our discretion and deny institution of inter partes review under Section 325(d). As we conclude in Sections IV.B.2.d and IV.C.2.c above, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating at trial that the challenged claims are unpatentable over the combination of Thomas and Raymond, or of Thomas, Raymond, and Turner. That remains true even if, arguendo, the Examiner materially erred in concluding that Thomas is not prior art to the ’335 patent, an issue upon 13 Thomas et al. (US 2010/0198034 A1, August 5, 2010) (“Thomas ’034”), Ex. 2101. 14 The publication date of the Thomas reference that is a basis of Grounds 1 and 2 in this inter partes review is August 12, 2010, one week after the publication of Thomas ’034. which we express no view. We consequently deny as moot Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion under Section 325(d).” slip op. at 51
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,266,335 - Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2023-01396 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 8, 9, and 11–27 were unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Board “may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless … the information presented in the petition … and any response … shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the 1 The other Petition seeking inter partes review of challenged claims 1–4, 8, 9, and 11–27 of the ’335 patent is in Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., IPR2023-01397 (filed October 6, 2023). 2 Available at: https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, the Explanation, the Explanation Response, and the evidence of record as presently developed, we determine that the evidence presented fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would ultimately prevail at trial in establishing the unpatentability of the challenged claims of the ’335 patent. We consequently deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We further conclude that Petitioner provides no persuasive reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to alter the location of Turner’s rotation-resisting recesses 77 from the upper surface of body 20 to the periphery of body 20, because Turner and the ’335 patent teach that their respective recesses serve different functions. Turner teaches that: Body 20 and insertion device 70 may be configured such that insertion device 70 cannot rotate with respect to body 20 when fully inserted in body 20. One manner of achieving this configuration comprises providing hub 74 with rotation-restricting protrusions 71, which extend in a downstream or downward direction from the main portion of insertion device hub 74, and by providing cap element 24 of body 20 with rotation-restricting recesses 77. When insertion device 70 is fully inserted in body 20, as shown in FIG. 3, at least a portion of each protrusion 71 extends into each recess 77 such that the recess side walls interfere with the protrusions to prevent rotation of the insertion device relative to body 20.” slip op. at 49
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,266,335 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01325 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, and 4–6 were unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For reasons discussed below, we do not institute review of claims 1, 4, and 4–6 of the ’033 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“concerning the ’834 patent, the intrinsic evidence is minimally helpful in revealing an affirmative meaning for the claims’ “spacing(s)” terms. IPR2023-01151, Paper 12, 39–41. The Specification does not use the term “spacings” in relation to the positioning of adjacent fibers; the drawings might be helpful, but neither party proposes a specific construction that is reliant on them. And, portions of the prosecution record are arguably confounding. For example, the applicant distinguished claimed “spacings” from “tightly knitted fibers.” Ex. 2140, 1001 (suggesting a more “loosely defined fiber structure” may be covered); see also Ex. 1002, 29–30 (asserting the claimed design has “a lesser [fiber] density construction” compared to Walther). This begs the question, at what point does a cloth of “tightly knitted fibers” convert to a cloth having a “loosely defined” fiber structure that would come within the scope of the claimed “spacings?” The record does not answer. Applicant’s suggestion during prosecution that the claimed spacings between fibers are “intentionally placed” about the frame and not simply “the spacing that may be inherent” in fibrous cloths is also unavailing on this record in clearly defining the metes and bounds of the term. Ex. 1002, 28–29. Whether the alleged absence of “objective boundaries” for the term “spacings” supports a conclusion that the claims are invalid as indefinite would be a question for the court. Paper 11, 5 (arguing There is insufficient technical detail available to determine whether the SAPIEN 3 Ultra does or does not include “spacings” as claimed and we take no position on whether such device infringes any claim of the ’033 patent. that a conclusion that the claims are indefinite is “outside the Board’s [IPR] jurisdiction”).12 Notwithstanding the lack of any express claim construction for the “spacings” term from either party, claim 1 of the ’033 patent requires something more than just “spacings.” Claim 1 requires “spacings extending through a thickness of the sealing assembly that allow fluid to pass therethrough when the prosthetic heart valve assembly is in an undeployed state.” Ex. 1001, 22:11–15 (emphasis added). In other words, the spacings must allow fluid to pass through the sealing assembly’s thickness when the valve is undeployed. For reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded on this record that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that this limitation is met—particularly the fluid-passing element—in the proposed combinations of Spenser or Levi with Spenser II.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We, thus, find Dr. Brecker’s testimony more credible that “[i]t would, accordingly, be counterintuitive for a [POSA] to look to a device designed to occlude a blood vessel when designing a TAVR.” Id. ¶¶ 119–120 (testifying “[n]o [POSA] would look to this [occluder] design when considering a TAVR valve and . . . would further have concerns about the pro-thrombotic potential of the arrangement of fibers in Chuter”). Where a proposed combination would run counter to the primary reference’s stated purpose, the POSA would not generally be motivated to make that combination. Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1069–70 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 43
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for patent owner
“Grounds 1 and 2 is based on the combination of either Levi and Spenser II, or Spenser and Spenser II. Yet Petitioner purports to modify Spenser II’s compressible material, or supplant it with something else, based on “porous” fabrics allegedly known elsewhere in the art, which art is not identified in the Petition itself as part of any asserted combination. Pet. 49. To see what specific modifications or combinations Petitioner might be suggesting, requires we look to three paragraphs of Dr. Buller’s Declaration, cited but not discussed by Petitioner, where eight additional references are mentioned. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–159 (identifying Exs. 1106–1112, and 1129). This format is an improper incorporation-by-reference of argument and evidence that, had Petitioner wanted to pursue some other combination of asserted art beyond Levi, Spenser, and Spenser II, needed to be set forth explicitly in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Moreover, it leaves the record unclear and forces Patent Owner, the Board, and the public to guess at what combination(s) are, in fact, being urged. We also find that Petitioner’s position reveals a hindsight bias insofar as it suggests, with the aim of arriving at the claimed subject matter, removing Spenser II’s “sufficiently dense” and fluid impermeable compressible material (Ex. 2128 ¶ 222) in favor of some other sufficiently “porous” and fluid permeable material. Hindsight is further evidenced because Spenser II’s cited material is already described as being compressible and adapted to allow coagulation and tissue ingrowth—factors cited by Patent Owner as allegedly motivating a change to some other material. Ex. 1011 ¶ 145. Altogether, we find unpersuasive Petitioner’s position based on unspecified combinations of unasserted prior art to achieve benefits that Spenser II’s existing compressible material already provides.” slip op. at 36
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,491,033 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 7, 2024 · IPR2023-01232 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 11–13 were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For reasons discussed below, we do not institute review of claims 11–13 of the ’310 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in November 2012 “would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses. This [POSA] would, where necessary, work with a medical device engineer to experiment with or manufacture a prosthetic heart valve.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 50). Patent Owner does not expressly contest Petitioner’s proposed definition or offer an alternative. See generally Prelim. Resp. For this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This POSA level is also consistent with the level the Board applied in earlier decisions involving the same parties and related patents. See, e.g., Ex. 2124, 11; Ex. 1120, 11–12.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“construction standard used to construe claims in a civil action before the courts under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing claims’ language in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as understood by the POSA, in view of the patent’s specification and considering the patent’s prosecution history. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We need only construe terms that are in controversy and only as needed to resolve the matters in dispute. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Petitioner contends that “[n]o terms of the ’310 patent require construction to resolve the patentability issues herein.” Pet. 19. Also, Petitioner contends, its “grounds are based on [Patent Owner’s] allegations that the ’310 patent covers Petitioner’s SAPIEN 3 Ultra valve and the scope of the claims asserted by [Patent Owner] in litigation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1122 (Complaint); Ex. 1123 (Infringement Contentions), 2, 262–476).11 Patent Owner does not propose any express claim construction. Instead, Patent Owner contends that the claims should be interpreted according to their ordinary and customary meaning. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 18–19, 35–36 (asserting that Petitioner’s mapping of the claims is, in respects, contrary to the “plain language” of the claims). 11 Petitioner identifies a claim construction order in related litigation where the district court construed an “outer frame” as a “self-expanding frame.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1140, 17). We need not further construe the “outer frame” term here because Petitioner contends, without dispute, that the prior art discloses self-expanding frames. Id. at 19–20, 26. Moreover, Patent Owner states that it has disclaimed those claims reciting the term “outer frame” to reduce the number of issues before the Board. Prelim. Resp. 75. about the scope of the claims, we address those arguments below in our discussion of the mapping of claims to the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We are unpersuaded. The language of claim 11 states the “sealing material is attached to the frame,” but also that it is the plurality of outwardly-extending “fibers” that maintain “contact with the frame along the height of the sealing material” whether the valve assembly is compressed or expanded. Supra Section II(D). Thus, according to this plain language, Petitioner must demonstrate that Spenser II’s identified fibers contact with the frame in its modification of Spenser or Levi—not just that some portion of Spenser II’s compressible material be attached to and contact the frame. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s contrary interpretation is “at-odds with the plain language of the claims.” Prelim. Resp. 18, 35. The cited excerpt from the prosecution history does not support Petitioner’s position that the “in contact” limitation is met if the sealing material—but not necessarily the fibers—contacts the frame. Petitioner cites an assertion by applicant during prosecution that modifying Levi’s valve so that the “sealing material” is in contact with the frame would not show that the claimed subject matter is obvious. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1002, 147–148). In its more complete context, however, applicant’s prosecution argument was made in furtherance of applicant’s repeated assertion that replacing Levi’s loosely-fit, “billowing” skirt with a tightly-held and bulky sleeve would change Levi’s principle of operation and make it too large and Resp. 35–36 (arguing applicant’s position is also “consistent” with claims’ plain language because, if Levi’s billowing skirt included outwardly-extending fibers, such fibers could not contact the frame along the skirt’s height when it billows out from the frame).15 Applicant’s argument does not rise to a concession that the “fibers in contact with the frame” limitation can be met so long as the sealing material contacts the frame. At best for Petitioner, the relevant prosecution history could be characterized as ambiguous; it does not justify rewriting claim 11’s plain language. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 127–128 (earlier version of proposed amendment to application claim 31, reciting “the sealing material is in contact with the outer frame”), 138–139 (later version of the proposed and as-entered amendment, expressly changing the language to require “the plurality of fibers is in contact with the outer frame”).” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,389,310
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.